PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Ricardo Ma P. G. Ongkiko, John Christian Joy A. Regalado and Ma Patricia B. Paz-Jacoba, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
However, money claims against the government are within the primary jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). The Supreme Court ruled in Department of Environment and Natural Resources v United Plan- ners Consultants , Inc (GR No 212081, 23 February 2015) that the settlement of any money claim against the Philippine government is still subject to the pri - mary jurisdiction of the COA, despite the finality of the confirmed arbitral award by the regional trial court pursuant to the Special ADR Rules. Thus, money claims must still be approved by the COA through a petition filed before them, unless an appropriation law has already been enacted to cover the prevailing party’s money claim against the govern - ment. Significantly, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2022 case that the COA cannot relitigate and re-examine the issues and evidence passed upon in a CIAC arbitral award, or reverse or modify such award. The COA’s jurisdiction is therefore limited only to determin - ing the source of funds for settlement and validating the clerical or mathematical accuracy of the amounts in the award ( Sunway Builders v Commission on Audit , GR 252986, 20 September 2022). The COA’s limited jurisdiction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bases Conversion and Development Authority v CJH Development Corporation (GR No 219421, 23 April 2024), where it was held that the COA’s dismissal of a money claim was proper in view of the pendency of a case seeking to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the final arbitral award. 12.3 Approach of the Courts Rule 12.12 of the Special ADR Rules provides for a presumption that an arbitral award was made and released in due course and is subject to enforcement by the court, unless a ground for setting aside the arbitral award was established. Thus, the courts are mandated to apply the grounds for setting aside or refusal of recognition strictly. Under the New York Convention, a court may refuse to recognise and enforce an international commer - cial arbitral award if enforcement would contravene the public policy of the state where recognition or enforcement is sought. Philippine Supreme Court jurisprudence provides guidance on the scope and application of this public policy exception.
In Mabuhay Holdings Corp v Sembcorp Logistics Lim- ited , the Supreme Court adopted a narrow and restric - tive approach in defining “public policy” pursuant to the pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement policy in Phil - ippine law. The court ruled that that “[m]ere errors in the interpretation of the law or factual findings would not suffice to warrant refusal of enforcement under the public policy ground. The illegality or immorality of the award must reach a certain threshold such that, enforcement of the same would be against [the Philip - pines’] fundamental tenets of justice and morality, or would blatantly be injurious to the public, or the inter - ests of society” (GR No 212734, 5 December 2018). This approach was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation v TIG Insur- ance Company (GR No 256177, 26 June 2022), where the court held that, to successfully invoke a violation of public policy as a ground to refuse enforcement of an arbitral award, the party asserting such ground must: • identify the state’s fundamental tenets of justice and morality; • prove the illegality or immorality of the award; and • show the possible injury to the public or the inter - ests of the society. 13. Miscellaneous 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration The ADR Act and the Special ADR Rules do not have provisions for class action or group arbitration. There were also no judicial precedents on this matter at the time of writing (August 2026). 13.2 Ethical Codes Various Philippine arbitration organisations and insti - tutions have adopted ethical codes and professional standards for arbitrators and arbitration counsel. To the extent that they do not conflict with any provisions in Philippine law, the Code of Ethics for Arbitration in the PDRCI’s administrative guidelines expressly incor - porates: • the IBA Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators;
714 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook